The issue isn't really how much nuclear fuel we have. The problem is democracy. As long as people are free to criticize nuclear power, it will have an uncertain future. Next time there's an accident or incident or attack, regardless of the actual danger, some people will say some very scary things.
But, even if the plants don't ever produce any electricity, we'll all pay for them anyway, just like I do today, here in NH. I pay a premium electrical rate because the fatcats made sure they got their money no matter what happens. And if you don't think that's the way the new plants will be built, think again.
People stopped a big wind project off Cape Cod, because they didn't like the way it looked. And a 1000 MW nuclear reactor with a big terrorist bullseye painted on top won't generate any public opposition? You can say "nothing's gonna happen," all you want. But you can't win the argument after you remember that a few guys with boxcutter knives scored a MAJOR hit against the headquarters of our military. Wasn't the Pentagon heavily defended? Yes, it was, maybe even better than the typical nuclear power plant. The enemy STUDIED their defenses, and then outflanked them.
By contrast, wind power offers many fewer uncertainties and dangers. It will not run out. The midwest has enough for the whole country. What we need is a few more fatcats trying to get rich off the wind.
In the debate on HR 1561, Howard Berman said, "Using a random sampling methodology, the PTO estimates its error rate for patents issued in fiscal year 2003 at 4.4 percent. That means more than 7,000 patents were issued in error. That means that at any given time given the 7-year pendency term for patents , there are over 120,000 bad patents in force. " He meant 17 year life, not "7-year pendancy", but his 120,000 figure was in the right ballpark.
PTO currently gets $1.2 billion dollars to examine patents on everything under the sun... from blue lasers to new cleaning solvents to fishing reels. While some/.ers question whether giving PTO more money is wise, I can't see where starving it for cash will make it operate any better. Because it takes years not days to get a patent, USPTO is under pressure to speed things up. Speeding things up either means hiring more people to handle the cases, or spending less time on each application. Hiring more people requires more money. Spending less time means there will be more than 120,000 bad patents floating around at any given time.
When judgements for single patents can cost $500 million, as in the Eolas case, and patents on drugs can be worth a billion a year (e.g., Viagra) does it really make sense to cut back the PTO budget? Again, PTO gets a mere 1.2 billion. It's not like an extra billion will break the US budget. HR 1561, which was supported by the National Association of Manufacturers, the Intellectual Property Owners Association, and the American Intellectual Property Lawyers Association, will only add an extra $300 million.
$385 billion gets spent on the military and national defence. $332 Billion gets spent on interest on the national debt. $278.5 billion on health care. $46.2 billion on the federal Department of Education.
Only $1.2 billion for the agency that is supposed to protect all the R&D investments made in the US?
Slashdot Mirror
The issue isn't really how much nuclear fuel we have. The problem is democracy. As long as people are free to criticize nuclear power, it will have an uncertain future. Next time there's an accident or incident or attack, regardless of the actual danger, some people will say some very scary things.
But, even if the plants don't ever produce any electricity, we'll all pay for them anyway, just like I do today, here in NH. I pay a premium electrical rate because the fatcats made sure they got their money no matter what happens. And if you don't think that's the way the new plants will be built, think again.
People stopped a big wind project off Cape Cod, because they didn't like the way it looked. And a 1000 MW nuclear reactor with a big terrorist bullseye painted on top won't generate any public opposition? You can say "nothing's gonna happen," all you want. But you can't win the argument after you remember that a few guys with boxcutter knives scored a MAJOR hit against the headquarters of our military. Wasn't the Pentagon heavily defended? Yes, it was, maybe even better than the typical nuclear power plant. The enemy STUDIED their defenses, and then outflanked them.
By contrast, wind power offers many fewer uncertainties and dangers. It will not run out. The midwest has enough for the whole country. What we need is a few more fatcats trying to get rich off the wind.
In the debate on HR 1561, Howard Berman said, "Using a random sampling methodology, the PTO estimates its error rate for patents issued in fiscal year 2003 at 4.4 percent. That means more than 7,000 patents were issued in error. That means that at any given time given the 7-year pendency term for patents , there are over 120,000 bad patents in force. " He meant 17 year life, not "7-year pendancy", but his 120,000 figure was in the right ballpark. PTO currently gets $1.2 billion dollars to examine patents on everything under the sun... from blue lasers to new cleaning solvents to fishing reels. While some /.ers question whether giving PTO more money is wise, I can't see where starving it for cash will make it operate any better. Because it takes years not days to get a patent, USPTO is under pressure to speed things up. Speeding things up either means hiring more people to handle the cases, or spending less time on each application. Hiring more people requires more money. Spending less time means there will be more than 120,000 bad patents floating around at any given time.
When judgements for single patents can cost $500 million, as in the Eolas case, and patents on drugs can be worth a billion a year (e.g., Viagra) does it really make sense to cut back the PTO budget? Again, PTO gets a mere 1.2 billion. It's not like an extra billion will break the US budget. HR 1561, which was supported by the National Association of Manufacturers, the Intellectual Property Owners Association, and the American Intellectual Property Lawyers Association, will only add an extra $300 million.
$385 billion gets spent on the military and national defence. $332 Billion gets spent on interest on the national debt. $278.5 billion on health care. $46.2 billion on the federal Department of Education.
Only $1.2 billion for the agency that is supposed to protect all the R&D investments made in the US?